Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 849 (MP)

SUNIL AHIRWAR v. RAJNI

2019-12-04

J.P.GUPTA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Satish Kumar Dawra, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Shriman Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Arpit Tiwari, learned G. A. for the respondent Nos. 2, 3/State. 2. This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred for quashment of complaint case registered, vide order dated 13-11-2017 pending before JMFC, Katni, as Complaint Case No. 3605/2017 under section 498 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No. 1, filed a complaint before JMFC, Katni stating that the applicant No. 1 is her husband and the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents and the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have doubt that the respondent knows trick of black magic and intended to harass them or kill them and on that account they are continuously harassing and used to beat her and they also provoke the applicant No. 1, who is her husband and he also harassed and beaten her. On the aforesaid complaint, learned JMFC, after enquiry and by calling police report took cognizance by the impugned order. 4. The aforesaid proceedings has been challenged on the ground that in the complaint, there is no averment about the demand of dowry, there is no ingredients to constitute the offence under section 498 (sic. 498-A) of Indian Penal Code and there is omnibus and general allegation with regard to harassment and beating. No specific instance has been mentioned. Such type of allegation is not sufficient to take cognizance relating to matrimonial dispute as there is a tendency to make false complaint to pressurize the in-laws and settle the score with oblique motive. Hence the criminal proceedings be quashed. 5. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has refuted the aforesaid contention and submitted that there is prima facie sufficient material to prosecute the applicants and the grievance of the respondent cannot be shut down at this initial stage, without giving opportunity of trial, hence the application be rejected. 6. Having considered the learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of record, going through the complaint and statement recorded by the Magistrate concerned, in view of this Court, there is omnibus allegation with regard to harassment and beating. 6. Having considered the learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of record, going through the complaint and statement recorded by the Magistrate concerned, in view of this Court, there is omnibus allegation with regard to harassment and beating. There is no specific averment that at which place or time, in which manner she was harassed and beaten and what was the role of each accused. Vague and general allegation is not sufficient to take cognizance of the offences, when there is no averment of the ingredients required to constitute the offence punishable under section 498 (sic. 498-A) of Indian Penal Code. In the case there is no averment with regard to demand of dowry and the cause of the dispute is that the applicants have doubt that complainant is involved in the activity of black magic to control them. Merely on the aforesaid dispute, it cannot be said that the applicants committed an offence punishable under section 498 (sic. 498-A) of Indian Penal Code. Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Sharma and ors. vs. State of U. P. and anr. passed in Cri. Appeal No. 1265/2017 dated 27-7-2017 in para 14 has stated as under : – “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the women to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement. This Court had earlier observed that a serious review of the provision was warranted. The matter also appears to have been considered by the Law Commission, the Malimath Committee, the Committee on Petitions in the Rajya Sabha, the Home Ministry, which have been referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. The abuse of the provision was also noted in the judgments of this Court referred to earlier. Some High Courts have issued directions to check such abuse.” 7. In view of the facts of the case, if the proceedings of the aforesaid case is continued, it would amount to misuse of the process of law and if the allegations are taken into consideration, it also does not constitute alleged offence. Hence this petition is allowed and the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3506/2017 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.